Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Simon Spier keeps a huge secret from his family, his friends, and all of his classmates: he's gay. When that secret is threatened, Simon must face everyone and come to terms with his identity.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
I had been looking forward to this one, book adaptation... of course I was going to be... so getting this as our secret screening was fun great. But it really divided the pack and there was much discussion online about it after. But not so much about the film. I'm going to get the grumpy portion of this out of the way first.
I think this is only the second secret screening I've been to. The first one was Molly's Game, which again, was one I'd been looking forward to seeing, and when the card came up at the beginning I think only one person left. It certainly wasn't many. The card comes up for this one... well, it was like a mass exodus. Without the film even rolling I think we lost about half a dozen people. After the first couple of minutes we lost another load. It was that second lot that made me lose faith in humanity a little, because it wasn't more than seconds after Simon says that he's gay that I heard disapproving noises and footsteps trotting out of seats.
Most people online said the same thing about their cinemas. And I know that you don't have to watch every film ever made. But don't just turn your nose up at it because (and here's me being optimistic) it's a young adult film/novel. If you turned your nose up at it because its main character is gay... well... welcome to the real world, they're here, they're queer, and they're here to stay.
I was pleased to see that lots of people gave it a chance, and many seemed to enjoy it. There was a lot of hate for it from others though, and honestly, when you read the comments for it... well, just don't read the comments. For every good there is a bad, but most of the bad either just walked out or don't really give much in the way of a genuine excuse. Several feel like they're being cheated by Cineworld for showing things that aren't blockbusters... people... this isn't how these things work. Trust me, the company comes to the middle man who presents it to the consumer. Business 101. Companies know that you're going to pay to see their big blockbusters and buy their merchandise... why would they give it to you for free? (Yes I know we all have Unlimited cards and essentially get them for free, but you get my meaning.) There's already hype around them, they don't need more. Anyway, away from my rant.
Love, Simon was a wonderful film, and despite what some are saying, (sorry, swerving into rant territory there again) it was laugh out loud funny... and everyone was laughing. Except those people who left without giving it a chance... wow, sorry, I just can't let this go.
If you haven't quite forgotten your teenage years you'll see lots of bits in this that really ring a bell. Those awkward moments, the crushes, the annoying teachers, the pain. If you've experienced any of them then there will be bits that you physically react to. You can feel the emotions that are running around the characters, you know the decisions they're making are good, bad and terrible, and you can almost see the future. As the story unfolds you really do get pulled along with Simon. You feel his pain and you feel his joy.
A genuine smile inducing film. I think you can see my favourite bit in one of the trailers... straight people not having to come out... it honestly cracked me up.
Of course the book is in the TBR, I'll get round to it eventually. But regardless of how it stacks up next to the book is was a wonderful film. You can only hope that it is enlightening to some that watch it, and helpful to others.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Poor Unfortunate Soul: A Tale of the Sea Witch (Villains #3) in Books
Sep 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A review by The Disney Bookworm:
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Enter the Void (Soudain le vide) (2010) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
WOW!
Not many modern filmmakers garner such a reputation for being controversial and are well deserved. Lars von Trier and Ari Aster come to mind, but I am sure there are others. They pull no punches with their work, so most provoke extreme reactions either love or hate. Maybe also appreciate the art form or what they are trying to say, but do not enjoy the extreme sex or violence or shock value from many of their scenes.
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
From the psychedelic opening credits (which are the complete film credits by the way, meaning no end credits at all) this film grabs your attention and should immediately realize what you are about to watch is going to be different, exciting, revolting and most of all unique in every way from most movies you have seen in your life until now.
The film focuses on the relationship between Oscar and Linda, a brother and sister living in Japan when tragedy strikes. Oscar goes to meet a friend for a drug deal only to have something go very wrong. For some reason, the police are present and pursue Oscar to the bathroom where he tries to dispense the drugs eliminating the evidence down the facilities. Shortly after, Oscar is shot in the chest and dies on the bathroom floor.
It seems as if Oscar's "soul" leaves his body and begins a hallucinatory journey interacting with his former friends, acquaintances and sister in a spiritual and mind blowing way to help make him and the audience understand the events which led to his death.
The siblings have had a rough life including the horrible death of their parents in an automobile accident when they were young. They were in the back seat as well, so not only witnessed the physical and emotional trauma, but also had to endure the subsequent separation from each other through foster care having to grow up without each other. Before they were separated, they made a blood pact and said they would always be there for each other no matter what.
Linda works at a dance/strip club and the forlorn about the death of her brother, but continues her job duties including dancing and having sex. She gets pregnant, then deals with the repercussions of the act. She becomes increasingly despondent with her life and wishes her brother was still with her.
Oscar's spirit meanders through the lives of his former life watching and understanding the emotions of those left on Earth.
The film is hard to explain and therefore maybe hard to understand as well. This seems to be one of those movies that is not only the words that are spoken, but the emotions that are portrayed and not said aloud. Whatever you believe spiritually about the soul and reincarnation, this film is not here to change your religious beliefs. It is shown in "first person" most of the time, so you interact with the characters of Oscar's life just as he is.
The use of neon colors both on the exterior cityscape of Japan and interior shots o the dance club are gorgeous and reminded me of what the world would appear as if life used a blacklight. The sequences of drug use could not be described as anything else other than living artwork. The rainbow kaleidoscope of the "trip" were reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and I read afterwards which is where Noe drew some of his inspiration.
Undoubtedly, the multitude of graphic sex scenes and shocking imagery will turn many off as some of it is pretty extreme, but I feel suits this film symbiotically and perfectly. In fact, the second half of the film is more style than substance (which you could probably say for a lot of Noe's films), but somehow you don't mind since you are along for the ride and enjoy the spectacle anyways.
After reading about the film after my viewing, I discovered there is a "director's cut" including around 20 minutes of additional scenes bring the running time to over 2 1/2 hours.
It looks like I'll be getting the Blu-Ray and watching again in a few weeks!
Trovit Cars
Auto & Vehicles, Lifestyle and Productivity
8.0
Rate It
App
Trovit Cars finds second hand cars on thousands of different websites and shows them to you in one...
Precision Ukulele Tuner - with Chords & Metronome
Music and Utilities
App
Precision Ukulele Tuner uses your device's microphone and visual feedback to enable you to tune your...
Trovit Jobs
Business and Productivity
App
Trovit Jobs finds job vacancies in thousands of different websites and shows them to you in one...
Good&Co: Personality Test
Business and Education
App
Hate your job? Great! That’s why we’re here. Is your employment satisfaction at an all-time low?...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 13, 2021
Some comedy action feels like a no-brainer really, and I do love a bit of Ryan Reynolds.
Guy is loving life in Free City, his goldfish, the amazing view from his apartment, getting to work with his best pal at the bank, it's all great. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, he starts to realise that there might be more to his world than he ever realised.
Well... this is exactly my sort of film, and yet, I'm really not feeling the excitement for it. The audience experience had me chuckling though, to my left... yawning, to my right... squeals of glee.
I think my main issue is that it felt very much like something I'd seen before. Almost instantly my brain said LEGO Movie and Truman Show, with some Ready Player One thrown in for good measure. Looking at the writers' back catalogue left no real surprises. Zak Penn wrote the screenplay for Ready Player One (one of his first credits on IMDb is for the story of Last Action Hero, and that feels like it gave some contributions too), and I had a mild recognition of bits from Matt Lieberman's Scoob and Playing With Fire.
Guy's initial evolution in the film is quite nice to watch with his days changing slightly each time. Everything then ramps up quite quickly once he steps out of his NPC programming properly for the first time... and this is where I thought I would be on board with it.
Once the video game elements kicked in I did have a bit of Easter egg spotting euphoria. Watching the background players jumping randomly, the generic but obviously named shops and locations. Much like Ready Player One, there were lots of things to discover in scenes outside of the storyline. But the style kept jumping between this "real life" video game and the video game that didn't know it was a video game. Admittedly there's a very fine line between those two realities. I did like that it replicates the way immersive play can feel when you forget that you are just playing a game, but even this, at times, felt a little forced.
As much as I love Ryan Reynolds, this wasn't a very challenging or original role for him. And just like the film overall, this felt like a mish-mash of his role that we've already seen on the big screen.
Comer's performance was great, and her online and real life personas had the subtle differences I'd expect to see... this does however, mildly highlight a slightly wider issue, and that's the stereotyping of gamers.
Computer nerds and gamers living in their mum's basements and being a little odd. That's a staple in media. Matty Cardarople's gamer, Kevin Smith's Warlock, Chris Reed's Todd Zarnecki. We love them, or we love to hate them, but it's getting a little tired.
One thing I couldn't fault the film for was the look of everything. Vibrant colours, a bit of fun with the costumes, and the effects throughout the action. It worked as a whole package, and for the most part, it balanced out the danger of the comedy getting a little too ridiculous.
I didn't overly notice an excess of IP/brand plugs, but there was one little cluster in Free Guy. One of the few things I truly enjoyed was where the Disney property merged into a fight scene towards the end. It amused me because I was expecting something like it to happen. It may have gone a smidge over the line of enjoyable, but I'm going to give it a pass. (And I do have a point that would have made this scene better, and I'm honestly disappointed that they didn't think to do it.)
I had been hoping that Free Guy would be a 4 star film, but I don't think I could give it more than a 3. It's watchable, but I don't feel any great need to own it or hunt it down before it's streaming. That being said, I am going to see it again. In the same vein as Ready Player One and 1917, I've watched it for the story, now I'm going back for the background detail.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/free-guy-movie-review.html
Guy is loving life in Free City, his goldfish, the amazing view from his apartment, getting to work with his best pal at the bank, it's all great. But when he meets the girl of his dreams, he starts to realise that there might be more to his world than he ever realised.
Well... this is exactly my sort of film, and yet, I'm really not feeling the excitement for it. The audience experience had me chuckling though, to my left... yawning, to my right... squeals of glee.
I think my main issue is that it felt very much like something I'd seen before. Almost instantly my brain said LEGO Movie and Truman Show, with some Ready Player One thrown in for good measure. Looking at the writers' back catalogue left no real surprises. Zak Penn wrote the screenplay for Ready Player One (one of his first credits on IMDb is for the story of Last Action Hero, and that feels like it gave some contributions too), and I had a mild recognition of bits from Matt Lieberman's Scoob and Playing With Fire.
Guy's initial evolution in the film is quite nice to watch with his days changing slightly each time. Everything then ramps up quite quickly once he steps out of his NPC programming properly for the first time... and this is where I thought I would be on board with it.
Once the video game elements kicked in I did have a bit of Easter egg spotting euphoria. Watching the background players jumping randomly, the generic but obviously named shops and locations. Much like Ready Player One, there were lots of things to discover in scenes outside of the storyline. But the style kept jumping between this "real life" video game and the video game that didn't know it was a video game. Admittedly there's a very fine line between those two realities. I did like that it replicates the way immersive play can feel when you forget that you are just playing a game, but even this, at times, felt a little forced.
As much as I love Ryan Reynolds, this wasn't a very challenging or original role for him. And just like the film overall, this felt like a mish-mash of his role that we've already seen on the big screen.
Comer's performance was great, and her online and real life personas had the subtle differences I'd expect to see... this does however, mildly highlight a slightly wider issue, and that's the stereotyping of gamers.
Computer nerds and gamers living in their mum's basements and being a little odd. That's a staple in media. Matty Cardarople's gamer, Kevin Smith's Warlock, Chris Reed's Todd Zarnecki. We love them, or we love to hate them, but it's getting a little tired.
One thing I couldn't fault the film for was the look of everything. Vibrant colours, a bit of fun with the costumes, and the effects throughout the action. It worked as a whole package, and for the most part, it balanced out the danger of the comedy getting a little too ridiculous.
I didn't overly notice an excess of IP/brand plugs, but there was one little cluster in Free Guy. One of the few things I truly enjoyed was where the Disney property merged into a fight scene towards the end. It amused me because I was expecting something like it to happen. It may have gone a smidge over the line of enjoyable, but I'm going to give it a pass. (And I do have a point that would have made this scene better, and I'm honestly disappointed that they didn't think to do it.)
I had been hoping that Free Guy would be a 4 star film, but I don't think I could give it more than a 3. It's watchable, but I don't feel any great need to own it or hunt it down before it's streaming. That being said, I am going to see it again. In the same vein as Ready Player One and 1917, I've watched it for the story, now I'm going back for the background detail.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/free-guy-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I had a dream. A sob. A sing.
You remember in “Aliens” when Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) fought through hell and high water against that “bitch” to protect the youngster Newt (Carrie Henn)? And then how betrayed you felt in that emotional investment at the start of “Alien 3”?
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.
Which brings us spoiler-free to the start of “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again”, typically shortened by everyone to “Mamma Mia 2”, the sequel to the enormously successful cheese-fest (and Bros-fest) that was the first film, now – unbelievably – 10 years old.
Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is trying to open the Bella Donna hotel on that magical Greek island separated from her husband Sky (Dominic Cooper) who is learning the tips of the hotel trade in New York. As preparations for the opening party progress we flash back to the back-story of Donna (as a post-graduate played by Lily James) as she meets Harry (Hugh Skinner, “The Windsors”, “W1A”), Bill (Josh Dylan, “Allied”) and Sam (Jeremy Irvine, “War Horse”) en route to Greece.
If you remember the first film and thought Donna (Meryl Streep) was a bit of a… erm… ‘loose woman’, then this plot point could have been amplified by seeing the “dot, dot, dot” acts in the flesh, as it were. Fortunately, in steps Lily James as the young Donna who is so mesmerisingly gorgeous and vivacious that you can forgive her just about anything. “Beguiling” was the description my better half came up with, and I couldn’t describe her better. Supporting her effectively are Alexa Davies (as the young version of Julie Walters‘ character) and Jessica Keenan Wynn (as the young version of Christine Baranski‘s character). The trio’s exuberant performance of “When I Kissed the Teacher” sets the tone well for the grin-fest to follow. (By the way, if you are a Mary Poppins fan then a bit of trivia is that Wynn is the great-granddaughter of Ed Wynn, the character who “Loved to Laugh” on the ceiling!).
In these days of drought, Trump vs the world, Brexit and universal bruhaha, this is a much-needed joyful film, and far better I would say than the original. A good story, well executed and stuffed with excellent tunes. True, apart from a number of key repeats, we are more in the territory – in CD terms – of “More Abba Gold” than “Abba Gold”, but Bjorn and Benny’s B-sides are still better than many other’s A-sides. What’s really nice is that the songs are well chosen to mesh better into the story and the lead singing of Seyfried and James is uniformly excellent. Pierce Brosnan gets to sing (no, no, come back!) but it is cleverly low-key and genuinely touching. And as for Celia Imrie, you’re a legend and we forgive you!
It’s also far better at finding both humour and pathos than the original, with the splendid Hugh Skinner exhibiting perfect comic timing and comedian Omid Djalili being very funny (stay to the end of the end-credits for a very funny monkey). National treasure Julie Walters also adds excellent comic content, particularly in a number of dance scenes.
And as for the pathos, if the duet at the finale doesn’t move you to tears you are either made of rock or are immune to being shamelessly manipulated! It’s a well-scripted convergence of grief and joy (I feel Richard Curtis‘s hand in the story here) around one of Abba’s most beautifully tear-jerking songs. I will admit to you – don’t tell anyone else – that I was left in a complete mess… another reason to sit through the end titles!
At the elderly end of the cast list Andy Garcia is magnificent as the South American hotel manager Mr Cienfuegos (you’ll NEVER guess what his first name is!) and Cher (“Moonstruck”) literally rocks up trying hard to steal the show as Sophie’s Vegas superstar grandmother.
Directed and scripted by “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” director Ol Parker (the lucky guy who is married to Thandie Newton!) it drips with cheese again, but who cares when it is so stylishly done. Should you see this? The test is simple: if you hated “Mamma Mia” then you will hate this one; if you loved “Mamma Mia” you will simply adore this one.